For fuck’s sake, choconutjoe, this isn’t about proving anything! How can I get that in this thick skull of yours?

edit: Oh boy, look who’s honoring us with his presence. The major troll himself. Hi there, nondeplumage. Say, are you theoretically capable of anything else than polemic or is this the only drive people like you are shipped with?

You said 'prove me wrong'.

I'm done.

Sorry, but none of these analogies make any sense to me. How are black holes analogous to hell? What do angels have to do with photons? Unless you can make these analogies plausible somehow, this just sounds like heavy-duty bullshit. The proposed reason for these analogies does not make sense either. I can tell you with certainty that it is impossible to learn anything about black holes or Big Bang cosmology by staring at the night sky (at least not with the naked eye, and certainly not without knowing general relativity). So how could the night sky possibly be the common origin of ancient mythology and these modern scientific concepts? The example that you've given for why gravity is analogous to evil is complete nonsense. Just because in Christian mythology something happened at a very early time, and in physical cosmology something else happened at a very early time, there is a meaningful connection between the two? You've got to be kidding.

Also, this analogy is based on the conjecture that all forces of Nature unify at some high energy scale. We assume that gravity decoupled first based on the strength of the gravitational interaction. So if instead, say, the strong interaction were the first to break from the unified symmetry, would quantum chromodynamics be evil? Sadly, it's true that the average citizen has a 19th-century worldview at best. However, I would not agree that quantum physics invalidates a mechanical worldview. The world still evolves according to fixed laws and causality in quantum mechanics, it's just not deterministic anymore. How are we supposed to judge his thoughts if you don't give us anything to go on? It seems that you are the only one who has read the book, so what do you expect from this discussion? You can't ask us to discuss a text that we haven't read and then imply that we are too stupid to get the author's point. The fact that he thought about this stuff for years doesn't mean it's sophisticated in any way. Also, how is it obvious that this guy is so much more intelligent than we are?

So which analogies has he found between Dante's hell and a black hole? You keep telling us that he has found all kinds of amazing parallels, but you haven't given us a single one so far. Are we supposed to just guess what they are, or to beg you to share Binggeli's wisdom with us? I guess it's possible that his book is the work of genius, but given what you have told us so far I can't see anything but gibberish.

Well, if brane cosmology is correct, then there was no Primum Mobile, the Big Bang was more analogous to two powerlines getting crossed in a windstorm, and Binggeli should stick to legitimate cosmology and give up pseudoscience.

Seriously, the ability to draw specious analogies without a shred of evidence is a good way to sell books but a blight upon the careers of those who do real science.

Since you didn’t add anything to the discussion that hasn’t been said before I’ll just assume you’re trolling and/or stupid.

You tend to mix things up, don’t you? On purpose, I wonder?
A) I told you that Binggeli’s aim isn’t to prove anything.
B) I on the other asked you to prove my claim (You can’t make just any amount of reasonable analogies between anything and anything) wrong. But all you did was posting a link about how it is likely for humans to see connections and patterns where there are none instead of doing what I asked you to do which is coming up with as many analogies between a cup of coffee and a black hole as Binggeli did! Go ahead, I’m still waiting.
By the way, to use this comparison of yours: What this book did is not only showing analogies between a cup of coffee and a black hole but to show many more analogies between dishes and and cosmology. So even if one were able to draw a few analogies between two random subjects, it’s unlikely that one would succeed at this over and over again within the same topic. This goes beyond “Well, he wants to see analogies so there they are” ...

Good thing you asked. That’s how this thread is supposed to work. And since you appear to deem yourself knowledgeable on this topic I’ll just list the main analogies. Should there be anything left unclear please point it out and I’ll go into detail.

Angel: | Photon:
angelos = messenger (of God) → messenger of the environment
heavenly origin → messengers of the unity
light form →“Light quanta”
manifestation not predictable → are subjects to the uncertainty principle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
are immaterial beings → have no rest mass
pure (Aristotelean) form, pure “intellect” → pure energy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
are atemporal (without memory) → have no “Eigenzeit” (this stuff is hard to translate)
are endemic to the atemporal realm of the Empyreum → nature of the physical light is transcendental
appear and operate only in the temporal world → photons only emerge through interactions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
move the spheres → “Wirkumsquanten” (Planck constant?) / “errand particle”
everything is driven by angels → convey the electromagnetic force
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
are countless (“the air, the earth, the ocean, everything is imbued with angels”) → for every mass element there are at least 10^9 photons (“Photon-Baryon-Relation”)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“How many angels fit on a pinpoint?” → problem of “Boson statistics”

Any weird expressions probably stem from my bad translation skills. Since you’re a fellow native speaker I’ll gladly repeat something in German if you didn’t understand what is meant.

Read. Seriously, read my posts. That’s, you know, the key for understanding each other’s point. So go back to the beginning of the thread and read my posts. Thank you.

The night sky was one of the influences he makes out. Another one he proposes is a less clear one and more of an assumption on his part. I described this one as well in my previous posts.

Again, read my posts. Synchronicity.

Hopefully this isn’t a straw man argument and instead you simply didn’t understand the point. I wouldn’t want to waste my time on that kind of debate.

Are you contesting that theory?

This is a superfluous question since it’s not the case. “Hätte der Hund nicht geschissen, hätte er den Hasen gehabt.” Didn’t your grandfather teach you that :> ?

That’s the point. The universe is not some kind of huge machine. If you take this drawing by Escher as a metaphor for said antiquated world view then it becomes pretty obvious. Depending on what Friedmann model you look at the universe isn’t even infinite but rather boundless. Like a bubble. Or a balloon. So as I stated before, quantum physics began blurring the lines of what was thought to be axiomatic (e.g. terms such as matter and energy).

Look at his academic achievements. Can you match up to that? You might introduce some different definitions of intelligence to counter this but that’d probably turn out to be a moot point so don’t do it for the sake of doing it.

AGAIN, read my posts before accusing me of something! Here, since I am generous I’ll even quote it for you:

So everything he wrote is just an idle analogy, with no scientific implications whatsoever. That's all the evidence you give, or that he gives.

His academic achievements are irrelevant outside his specialty, which is the measurement of small and distant galaxies; and if you wish or he wishes to cite them in support of this nonsense, then it is dishonest.

Since you did not see fit to quote me, I will paraphrase.

Whether the "Big Bang" itself ever occurred is not settled, and the existence of any kind of "Prime Mover" is speculative. Metaphysical arguments founded on the presumption that these did exist are mere speculation. And from nothing comes nothing.

It sounds like a stretch, he should have written a poem instead.

If you had read the whole conversation you might have noticed that I cited them because someone contested the claim that he is very intelligent.

Also, let me reiterate:
Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man. If you can’t see any reason for doing this (duh, you never read it) then fine. But don’t act like this is anything else than your subjective point of view. Comes off as mighty snobby, y’know?

None of these comparisons are analogies. Or really comparisons, except by opposites.

lol...If you need help with a college paper you should just go out and ask for it! ;p I'm kidding, I'm kidding.
Philosophy always made my stomach sick. It seems to me that most philosophers take so many simple concepts, that are so easy to grasp, and describe them in the longest and most worded way possible...Guess thats why my subject was history...you know, give it to me straight. Well, at least from so and so's point of veiw that is.
Well hope I helped! =))
Oh and yes...The night sky has surely impacted my mind, espcially when that darn moon is out and I have a horrible rest! ;)

The concept of "Guardian Photons" seems a little weird :P.

False. I concur. Also, learn to quote only the necessary parts of a text. For fuck’s sake, is this that hard for you people?

Not in comparison to the pseudo-Scholastic question of how many photons could dance on the head of a pin.

And it positively pales in comparison to the question of whether an angel would interfere with itself if you catapulted it at a double slit.

Seriously, just fuck off if you’re not interested in a productive debate.